After the range of responses I received when I linked to criticisms of the movie Prince Caspian, I decided I would see the movie after all. In particular, I was intrigued by the link Emily left to Frederica Mathewes-Green’s review, where she claimed that the movie was better than the book. I read a few more reviews, and went into the movie prepared to see something different than the book, but willing to give it a chance.
And the first half went well. Lewis’ novel is full of characters telling stories to other characters, which muddies the timeline, and the initial obvious changes the movie made streamlined the narrative, choosing instead a straightforward linear sequence, fleshing out some details that were only casually mentioned in the book and inventing others.
In Lewis’ novel, the movement from doubt to faith is a significant part of each character’s development. Several characters doubt the existence of Aslan, or doubt the reality of a particular action of Aslan’s. In the movie the director has changed this from the intellectual doubt in Aslan’s existence to the personal lack of trust in Aslan’s faithfulness. Trumpkin the dwarf objects not so much that Aslan isn’t real, but that Aslan abandoned Narnia long ago, and therefore cannot be relied on.
All of these were changes I could handle, though not enjoy.
But then.
A persistent question in the movie is “Why doesn’t Aslan appear to us?” In Lewis’ novel this question is left more or less unanswered, but in the movie Lucy finally gives her own explanation. “Perhaps he needs us to prove ourselves to him first,” she says.
And then I threw up.
Okay, not really. But that was the point where my impatience with this movie began to grow. When filming a Christian classic written by a devout Protestant, it is perhaps less than honest to your source material to make the spiritual explanation of the movie a statement so hostile to Reformation theology.
Maybe Dawn Treader will have a scene where the characters burn William Tyndale in effigy. Just to be consistent.
Like the first movie, this one focuses more on the character of Peter than Lewis’ novels did. Peter is much more conflicted in this film than in the novel - not only conflicted, but pouty. And selfish. And angry. It is as though Lewis’ Peter Pevensie had all his goodness surgically removed.
And I think that is the basic problem with the movie. Yes, it is visually gorgeous. Yes, its narrative structure is more direct and appeals more to a generation raised on movies than the quiet meanderings of storytelling. Yes, its pacing is far more exciting than the novel. But whether it is Peter’s relationship with Caspian, his reconciliation with Aslan or his battle with Miraz, the director’s changes to Peter’s character do not make him more complex, only shabbier.
Goodness is missing from this movie. You can bring it with you; you can find in Aslan all the things that you know are supposed to be in Aslan, but the nobility of spirit that existed in many of the original characters is gone.
And I’m not sure the director even recognized it was missing.
23 responses so far ↓
1 Heidi // Jun 13, 2008 at 12:50 am
As you always do, you really nailed the good and problematic in this film.
I loved Peter in the books, but you’re right–he’s made smaller and pettier in the movie.
Thanks for putting your finger on it . . .
2 Sue // Jun 13, 2008 at 1:44 am
You know, I don’t quibble with changing plot details, or characters, or even endings; but changing the whole SOUL of the movie? It’s so disrespectful
I was looking forward to seeing it; now I’m not so sure.
3 The Razzler // Jun 13, 2008 at 6:32 am
What a wonderful review! I love the books so much and it’s so sad to see what silly film-makers do to such beautiful stories.
4 suburbancorrespondent // Jun 13, 2008 at 8:17 am
I can’t bear to see the movies.
Is Lucy’s line that inaccurate? In a way, they did have to “prove” themselves by believing in him and following him before they could see him (in the book, anyway). And isn’t it true, that in order to see God working in our lives, we need to believe in Him first?
5 Kimberly // Jun 13, 2008 at 8:29 am
“And I’m not sure the director even recognized it was missing.”
Oooh. I think that is so true! It really takes a true believer — in the sense of believing in the book of which you are making a movie — to do a book justice. That is why I think the LOTR trilogy was so good. It was true to the spirit of the books.
It is disappointing for me to realize that the Narnia movies haven’t been true to the spirit of the novels. I loved them so much as a child.
I will say that I do just love the way Aslan was portrayed in “Wardrobe”. He looked just the way I have always imagined he would look.
6 Beck // Jun 13, 2008 at 9:04 am
I’m not going to bother watching this. I’ll stick with the goofy but accurate BBC adaptation.
7 Veronica Mitchell // Jun 13, 2008 at 9:07 am
SC, in the context of the film I felt that they were saying instead that we need to earn God’s regard, an idea that gives me the theological heebie jeebies. I can see how other interpretations are possible, but while watching it, my forceful impression was that Lucy was saying we need to demonstrate our merit before Aslan/God will grant us knowledge of himself.
8 Jason V // Jun 13, 2008 at 9:32 am
I totally agree. If you’re like me and have read the books 30 times, you can find the points Lewis was making, but countless times in both Movies I found myself saying, “That’s not in the book!”
What’s with the whole caspian/Peter/evil hags deep underground/Ice Witch scene? I mean, where did they get that? Out of one line in the book that says the dwarves liked black magic. Thanks, Toddled Dredge. And thanks for standing for Biblical truth…
9 Shalee // Jun 13, 2008 at 11:04 am
I saw the movie as well (free because our neighbor who works for AMC wanted us to take his daughter to it), and although it was clean and entertaining, I left feeling disappointed in the presentation of such God-loving/trusting books.
In other words, I agree with your post. The entire movie was a shabby, water-logged presentation of a series that rises above the sea of mediocracy.
10 Terri // Jun 13, 2008 at 12:27 pm
I’ll risk going out on a limb with my comment. I understand what you’re saying and what your objections are, but the question I have is what do we really expect from a secular film maker? You’re right. The director likely didn’t realize what was missing. But really what do Christians expect from an industry so dominated by a secular, humanistic mentality? Really, it’s a surprise that the movie was as accurate as it was.
Of course I disagree with Lucy’s line in the movie about proving themselves to Aslan first, but I doubt the director was concerned with doctrinal accuracy. My guess is that he took what is considered a classic children’s book in the same vein as Tolkein’s books, and made a Hollywood style movie out of it. I doubt there was much concern with an accurate portrayal of Reformed theology. But, then again, maybe I’m wrong.
11 Veronica Mitchell // Jun 13, 2008 at 2:04 pm
Terri, I think it is reasonable to wish for a filmmaker to make a film that is true to the spirit of the original book. Being true to the source material is not a particularly Christian issue.
Look at LOTR - Peter Jackson made a movie that satisfied most of the fans of the book without necessarily sharing the religious beliefs of the author.
Or going back a few generations, look at A Man for All Seasons, written by a playwright who was not Catholic, filmed by a director who was not Catholic, but ably expressing Catholic beliefs.
I suspect that the problems with Adamson’s film aren’t really between Christians and non-Christians, but between people who loved Narnia and people who didn’t.
12 Sherri E. // Jun 13, 2008 at 3:38 pm
This very thing was what irritated me about the change in Faramir from LOTR books to movies. In the novels he was clearly an unqualified hero, resisting from the first the temptation that destroyed Boromir. In the movies he’s a basically nice guy who falls victim to his need for daddy’s approval. What???
And just FYI, Andrew Adamson may indeed be a Christian; his parents certainly were. But he has deliberately remained vague about it in interviews.
13 Miscellaneous From Missy // Jun 13, 2008 at 3:48 pm
I agree. I enjoyed the movie, and I found things in it to take away and ponder, but only because I came with things.
I can’t remember in the book if Susan kissed Caspian in the end, but things like that really make me mad. Kids watching do not need to be brain-washed that the ultimate goal in life is to kiss the boy/girl that you like.
14 Terri // Jun 13, 2008 at 4:06 pm
Perhaps you’re right, but the objections I see being raised are mainly to do with the spiritual lessons in the story and how the director obscured or twisted them.
Enjoying the Narnia movies and being a true fan of the books are not mutually exclusive. I loved the Narnia books as a child and have read them multiple times even as an adult, but I also really enjoyed the movies.
However, I do agree with the above commenter about the kiss scene at the end of the movie.
15 TongguMomma // Jun 13, 2008 at 5:00 pm
You are right — what is so sad is that the director probably DIDN’T realize that goodness was missing from his movie.
Along with half of America…
16 Emily // Jun 13, 2008 at 9:55 pm
The best review I’ve read yet on this movie… Thanks.
My hubby and I went to see this one afternoon soon after it came out, and I hadn’t had a chance to reread the book since the last time (18 months ago?), so I spent a good deal of the movie being a little confused. I do agree w/ SC, though. Her comment about Lucy’s line seemed just like that to me–like Aslan needed them to show that they believed. Now, I don’t really agree with that from a theological perspective either (being a staunch Reformed girl myself), but I think that it is better than the other option…
Also, although the kiss scene at the end was a little disturbing, my hubby seemed to think that they were setting Susan up for her apostate role in the final book when she was more interested in the world and boys than in Narnia. Anyone have thoughts on his opinion?
I also agree with Jason that the absolutely most disturbing scene was the hag scene. Lots of weirdness going on there…
Was Lewis’s step-son not involved with this one like he was with the last one?
17 suburbancorrespondent // Jun 13, 2008 at 10:16 pm
Susan kissed Caspian? Now I’m definitely not going to see it. What is that world coming to?
18 brother // Jun 14, 2008 at 7:49 am
Unfortunately the legitimate version of Prince Caspian hasn’t made it to Afghansitan yet so I can’t comment first hand on the movie. My wife did find it entertaining and expressed a desire to see it together when I come home next month.
I would say that Peter Jackson direction of LOTR is a fair comparison. Those of us who didn’t like some of the twists he made in the movie still were amazed at the stunning scenes he created. He made middle-earth come alive to those of us who only had our imagination or occasional Tolkien calendar to fill in the details.
These movies do the same thing for the CON books. The white witch didn’t have to be 9 feet tall to still be a intimidating character in the story. The director doesn’t have to lock step to the book to still tell us entertaining (but diminished) story.
Having a line from Lucy about earning Aslan’s (God’s) approval gives me the opportunity to confront that worldview head-on. I love to ask my children what was the “silliest” thing they saw in the movie? When they tell me all the jokes and gags I can point back to that simple statement and ask them if that is how God is. I have my teaching point. It encourages them to view everything critically in light of God’s truth and perspective. They can still enjoy the imagination that the director brings to the film without losing their anchor of what defines truth.
I take the same view toward Susan kissing the Prince. Boys and girls kissing is something we should be talking about. Why let the world teach young people that they can kiss or engage in sexual activity with no restraint. Children need to see healthy expressions of affection in married relationships or else their only viewpoint is going to be what the world has to offer.
Talking about the movie with friends or children gives each of us an opportunity to speak the truth in love about what was the central theme of the movie. Point them to CON if they liked the movie so they can see a much clearer in the depiction of the truth.
19 NOBLE PIG // Jun 14, 2008 at 11:52 am
I haven’t seen it yet, but STILL want too!
20 Patience // Jun 14, 2008 at 4:54 pm
Thanks for stopping by my site.
This is a good review. I’ve always thought Prince Caspian was one of the weakest of the books, but I was looking forward to seeing the movie anyway. I’m thinking I should at least read the book out loud to my kids before we see it.
21 Happy Mommy // Jun 17, 2008 at 10:05 pm
My husband has been reading the Chronicles of Narnia to our family for about 8 months our 6 and 4 year old boys love the books our 2 year old daughter just likes hearing her Daddy read. We just finished Price Caspian, it was another great book! My kids can’t wait to see the movie, I am so sad to hear how it was changed!
22 Marketing Mama // Jun 18, 2008 at 4:36 am
Wow, very well said. I was worried about watching it after seeing your first post. My DH really, really wanted to go last weekend… and you were right, it was totally a fighting movie. Way too much war for me. I kept forgetting if I was watching a Chronicles movie or Lord of the Rings. Buh.
23 Emily // Jun 19, 2008 at 6:46 pm
Well I’m glad you saw it, and I’m glad you reviewed it. Having done a lot of thinking about it since watching, I’d have to say that I agree almost entirely with your review. It’s a good movie…but it misses a lot of really important (crucial!) parts of the book entirely.
Leave a Comment